Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:25

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 4:25” utilice nuestra app.

For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

25. The reading, the construction and the meaning of the first clause of this verse are uncertain, and have afforded matter for considerable discussion. The genuineness of the word ‘Hagar’ is doubtful. If it is retained, the sense will be, ‘For (or, as some copies read, ‘now’) this term Hagar is the name by which Mount Sinai is called in Arabia’, it therefore represents Mount Sinai, which is in Arabia, the country to which Hagar fled and which her descendants inhabit. ‘The word Hagar in Arabic means “a rock”, and some authorities tell us that Mount Sinai is so called by the Arabs’. Conybeare and Howson. But it is better to omit it, and the sense will then be, ‘For Mount Sinai is in Arabia’, the country of Ishmael’s descendants, the offspring of the bondwoman. In any case the clause is parenthetical, and the following words refer to Hagar in the preceding verse: ‘and this is Hagar (for Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia the country of the Ishmaelites) and it (the covenant) corresponds to Jerusalem &c.’

and answereth ] ‘belongs to the same row or category, corresponds to’, see note Gal 4:22.

Jerusalem which now is ] Here, from the addition of the phrase ‘with her children’ (comp. Mat 23:37), it is evident that Jerusalem stands for the whole Jewish people, nationally considered. It is contrasted not, as might have been expected, with ‘Jerusalem which shall be ’, but with ‘Jerusalem which is from above’; but the antithesis is not weakened. The Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:2) is the same as the ‘ new Jerusalem’ (Rev 21:2) of the prophetic vision, which is even now the city and the home of every true believer (Php 3:20). It is in heaven (or above) until the number of God’s elect shall be accomplished, and then it will ‘come down from God out of heaven’, not like a bondwoman and an outcast, but ‘as a bride adorned for her husband’.

and is in bondage ] The reference is probably to the legal bondage to which every Jew, as such, was subject. But Jerusalem was at this time literally a conquered city, subject to the Imperial power of Rome.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For this Agar is Mount Sinai – This Hagar well represents the Law given on Mount Sinai. No one can believe that Paul meant to say that Hagar was literally Mount Sinai. A great deal of perplexity has been felt in regard to this passage, and Bentley proposed to cancel it altogether as an interpolation. But there is no good authority for this. Several manuscripts and versions read it, For this Sinai is a mountain in Arabia; others, to this Hagar Jerusalem answereth, etc. Griesbach has placed these readings in the margin, and has marked them as not to be rejected as certainly false, but as worthy of a more attentive examination; as sustained by some plausible arguments, though not in the whole satisfactory. The word Hagar in Arabic is said to signify a rock; and it has been supposed that the name was appropriately given to Mount Sinai, because it was a pile of rocks, and that Paul had allusion to this meaning of the word here. So Chandler, Rosenmuller, and others interpret it. But I cannot find in Castell or Gesenius that the word Hagar in Arabic has this signification; still less is there evidence that the name was ever given to Mount Sinai by the Arabs, or that such a signification was known to Paul. The plainest and most obvious sense of a passage is generally the true sense; and the obvious sense here is, that Hagar was a fair representation of Mount Sinai, and of the Law given there.

In Arabia – Mount Sinai is situated in Arabia Petraea, or the Rocky. Rosenmuller says that this means in the Arabic language; but probably in this interpretation he stands alone.

And answereth to Jerusalem – Margin, Is in the same rank with. The margin is the better translation. The meaning is, it is just like it, or corresponds with it. Jerusalem as it is now (that is, in the days of Paul), is like Mount Sinai. It is subject to laws, and rites, and customs; bound by a state of servitude, and fear, and trembling, such as existed when the Law was given on Mount Sinai. There is no freedom; there are no great and liberal views; there is none of the liberty which the gospel imparts to men. The word sustoichei, answereth to, means properly to advance in order together; to go together with, as soldiers march along in the same rank; and then to correspond to. It means here that Mount Sinai and Jerusalem as it then was would be suited to march together in the same platoon or rank. In marshalling an army, care is taken to place soldiers of the same height, and size, and skill, and courage, if possible, together. So here it means that they were alike. Both were connected with bondage, like Hagar. On the one, a law was given that led to bondage; and the other was in fact under a miserable servitude of rites and forms.

Which now is – As it exists now; that is, a slave to rites and forms, as it was in fact in the time of Paul.

And is in bondage – To laws and customs. She was under hard and oppressive rites, like slavery. She was also in bondage to sin Joh 8:33-34; but this does not seem to be the idea here.

With her children – Her inhabitants. She is represented as a mother, and her inhabitants, the Jews, are in the condition of the son of Hagar. On this passage compare the notes at 1Co 10:4, for a more full illustration of the principles involved here.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 25. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia] . This is the common reading; but it is read differently in some of the most respectable MSS., versions, and fathers; thus: , for this Sinai is a mountain of Arabia; the word , Agar, being omitted. This reading is supported by CFG, some others, the AEthiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and one copy of the Itala; by Epiphanius, Damascenus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Augustine, Hilary, Sedulius, and Bede; and the word is sometimes, though not always, omitted by Cyril and Origen, which proves that in their time there were doubts concerning the common reading.

Of the word Agar in this verse, which renders the passage very obscure and difficult, Professor White says, forsitan delendum, “probably it should be expunged.” Griesbach has left it in the text with a note of doubtfulness.

Answereth to Jerusalem] Hagar, the bond maid, bringing forth children in a state of slavery, answereth to Jerusalem that now is, , points out, or, bears a similitude to, Jerusalem in her present state of subjection; which, with her children-her citizens, is not only in bondage to the Romans, but in a worse bondage to the law, to its oppressive ordinances, and to the heavy curse which it has pronounced against all those who do not keep them.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Agar, the bondwoman, fitly represented

Mount Sinai, the mountain in Arabia, from which the law was given: and

Jerusalem which now is answereth to Mount Sinai; for as in Mount Sinai the law was given in a terrible manner, so now Jerusalem is the seat of the scribes and Pharisees, who are the doctors of that law, and rigidly press the observation of it, by which the Jews are kept

in bondage. The apostle speaketh not here of the civil servitude that the Jews were in under the Romans, to whom they were now tributaries, but of that religious servitude in which the scribes and Pharisees kept them to their legal services.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

25. Translate, “For thisword, Hagar, is (imports) Mount Sinai in Arabia (that is,among the Arabiansin the Arabian tongue).” SoCHRYSOSTOM explains.Haraut, the traveller, says that to this day the Arabians call Sinai,”Hadschar,” that is, Hagar, meaning a rock orstone. Hagar twice fled into the desert of Arabia (Gen 16:1-16;Gen 21:9-21): from her themountain and city took its name, and the people were calledHagarenes. Sinai, with its rugged rocks, far removed from thepromised land, was well suited to represent the law which inspireswith terror, and the spirit of bondage.

answerethliterally,”stands in the same rank with”; “she corresponds to.”

Jerusalem which now isthatis, the Jerusalem of the Jews, having only a present temporaryexistence, in contrast with the spiritual Jerusalem of the Gospel,which in germ, under the form of the promise, existed agesbefore, and shall be for ever in ages to come.

andThe oldestmanuscripts read, “For she is in bondage.” As Hagarwas in bondage to her mistress, so Jerusalem that now is, is inbondage to the law, and also to the Romans: her civil state thusbeing in accordance with her spiritual state [BENGEL].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,…. The Arabic version, instead of Arabia, reads “Balca”. The Syriac version makes Hagar to be a mountain, reading the words thus, “for Mount Hagar is Sinai, which is in Arabia”: and some have been of opinion that Sinai was called Hagar by the Arabians. It is certain, that , which may be pronounced Hagar, does signify in the Arabic language a stone or rock; and that one part of Arabia is called Arabia Petraea, from the rockiness of it; the metropolis of which was , or “Agara”, and the inhabitants Agarenes; and Hagar was the name of the chief city of Bahrein, a province of Arabia r: and it may be observed, that when Hagar, with her son, was cast out, they dwelt in the wilderness of Paran, Ge 21:21 which was near to Sinai, as appears from

Nu 10:12 so that it is possible that this mount might be so called from her, though there is no certainty of it; and near to it, as Grotius observes, was a town called Agra, mentioned by Pliny s as in Arabia. However, it is clear, that Sinai was in Arabia, out of the land of promise, where the law was given, and seems to be mentioned by the apostle with this view, that it might be observed, and teach us that the inheritance is not of the law. It is placed by Jerom t in the land of Midian; and it is certain it must be near it, if not in it, as is clear from Ex 3:1. And according to Philo the Jew u, the Midianites, as formerly called, were a very populous nation of the Arabians: and Madian, or Midian, is by w Mahomet spoken of as in Arabia; and it may be observed, that they that are called Midianites in Ge 37:36 are said to be Ishmaelites,

Ge 39:1 the name by which the Arabians are commonly called by the Jews. The apostle therefore properly places this mountain in Arabia. But after all, by Agar, I rather think the woman is meant: and that the sense is, that this same Agar signifies Mount Sinai, or is a figure of the law given on that mount.

And answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; that is, agrees with and resembles the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of all the cities and towns in Judea; and she, being a bondwoman, represented that state of bondage the Jews were in, when the apostle wrote this, who were in a state of civil, moral, and legal bondage; in civil bondage to the Romans, being tributaries to the empire of Rome, and under the jurisdiction of Caesar; in moral bondage to sin, to Satan, to the world and the lusts of it, whose servants they in general were; and in legal bondage to the ceremonial law, which was a yoke of bondage: they were in bondage under the elements or institutions of it, such as circumcision, a yoke which neither they, nor their forefathers could bear, because it bound them over to keep the whole law; the observance of various days, months, times, and years, and the multitude of sacrifices they were obliged to offer, which yet could not take away sin, nor free their consciences from the load of guilt, but were as an handwriting of ordinances against them; every sacrifice they brought declaring their sin and guilt, and that they deserved to die as the creature did that was sacrificed for them; and besides, this law of commandments, in various instances, the breach of it was punishable with death, through fear of which they were all their life long subject to bondage: they were also in bondage to the moral law, which required perfect obedience of them, but gave them no strength to perform; showed them their sin and misery, but not their remedy; demanded a complete righteousness, but did not point out where it was to be had; it spoke not one word of peace and comfort, but all the reverse; it admitted of no repentance; it accused of sin, pronounced guilty on account of it, cursed, condemned, and threatened with death for it, all which kept them in continual bondage: and whereas the far greater part of that people at that time, the Jerusalem that then was, the Scribes, Pharisees, and generality of the nation, were seeking for justification by the works of the law, this added to their bondage; they obeyed it with mercenary views, and not from love but fear; and their comforts and peace rose and fell according to their obedience; and persons in such a way must needs be under a spiritual bondage.

r Castel. Lex. Polyglot. col. 804. s Nat. Hist. l. 6. c. 28. t De locis Hebraicis, fol. 96. H. u De Fortitudine, p. 741. w Koran, c. 7. p. 126.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

This Hagar ( H). Neuter article and so referring to the word Hagar (not to the woman, Hagar) as applied to the mountain. There is great variety in the MSS. here. The Arabians are descendants of Abraham and Hagar (her name meaning wanderer or fugitive).

Answereth to (). Late word in Polybius for keeping step in line (military term) and in papyri in figurative sense as here. Lightfoot refers to the Pythagorean parallels of opposing principles () as shown here by Paul (Hagar and Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac, the old covenant and the new covenant, the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem). That is true, and there is a correlative correspondence as the line is carried on.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,” (to de Hagar Sina oros en te Arabia) “The Hagar (now) is (exists as) Mount Sinai in the (land of) Arabia.” As Hagar was rejected by Sara, so the church was rejected by Israel, yet the church is free, lives on to do the service of Christ, to all the World, Mat 28:18-20; Act 1:8.

2) “And answereth to Jerusalem which now is,” (sustoichei de te nun lerousalem) “and corresponds to the now and hereafter Jerusalem; now trodden down of the Gentiles, till the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled and the church, called from among the Gentiles for his name’s sake, Luk 21:24; Mat 4:12-17; Act 10:37; Act 15:14; Eph 3:5-10; Eph 3:21.

3) “And is in bondage with her children,” (douleuei gar meta ton teknon autes) “For she serves as a slave with her children”; blinded in part till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in,” Rom 11:25.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

25. For Agar is mount Sinai (78) I shall not waste time in refuting the expositions of other writers; for Jerome’s conjecture, that Mount Sinai had two names, is trifling; and the disquisitions of Chrysostom about the agreement of the names are equally unworthy of notice. Sinai is called Hagar, (79) because it is a type or figure, as the Passover was Christ. The situation of the mountain is mentioned by way of contempt. It lies in Arabia, beyond the limits of the holy land, by which the eternal inheritance was prefigured. The wonder is, that in so familiar a matter they erred so egregiously.

And answers, on the other hand. The Vulgate translates it, is joined (conjunctus est) to Jerusalem; and Erasmus makes it, borders on (confinis) Jerusalem; but I have adopted the phrase, on the other hand, (ex adverso,) in order to avoid obscurity. For the apostle certainly does not refer to nearness, or relative position, but to resemblance, as respects the present comparison. The word, σύστοιχα, which is translated corresponding to, denotes those things which are so arranged as to have a mutual relation to each other, and a similar word, συατοιχία, when applied to trees and other objects, conveys the idea of their following in regular order. Mount Sinai is said ( συστοιχεῖν) to correspond to that which is now Jerusalem, in the same sense as Aristotle says that Rhetoric is ( ἀντίστροφος) the counterpart to Logic, by a metaphor borrowed from lyric compositions, which were usually arranged in two parts, so adapted as to be sung in harmony. In short, the word, συστοιχεῖ, corresponds, means nothing more than that it belongs to the same class.

But why does Paul compare the present Jerusalem with Mount Sinai? Though I was once of a different opinion, yet I agree with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who explain it as referring to the earthly Jerusalem, and who interpret the words, which now is , τὣ νῦν ̔ιερουσαλὴμ, as marking the slavish doctrine and worship into which it had degenerated. It ought to have been a lively image of the new Jerusalem, and a representation of its character. But such as it now is, it is rather related to Mount Sinai. Though the two places may be widely distant from each other, they are perfectly alike in all their most important features. This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose real mother was not Sarah but the spurious Jerusalem, twin sister of Hagar; who were therefore slaves born of a slave, though they haughtily boasted that they were the sons of Abraham.

(78) “ Car Agar est la montagne de Sina en Arabie, et est correspondante a Ierusalem; ou, Sina est une montagne en Arabie, correspondante a Ierusalem.” “For Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem; or, Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which corresponds to Jerusalem.”

(79) “Several critics have thought it so extraordinary, that they have attempted to alter it from mere conjecture, as may be seen in Bowyer’s ‘Critical Conjectures.’ But no man, who knew that the Arabic word ‘Hagar’ meant a rock, could think of making an alteration in this passage; for it is obvious that τὸ ̀̔Αγαρ, in the neuter gender, cannot signify the woman Hagar; and Paul has not been guilty of a grammatical error, since the passage must be translated, ‘The word Hagar denotes Mount Sinai in Arabia.’“ — Michaelis.

“

That this was an appellation of Sinai among the people of the surrounding country, we have the testimony of Chrysostom and the ancient commentators, which is also confirmed by the accounts of modern travellers. And it might well have it, since הגר ( hagar) in Arabia signifies a rock, or rocky mountain; and as Sinai is remarkably such, it might be κατ ᾿ ἐξοχὴν, called τὸ ̀̔Αγαρ.” — Bloomfield.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

TEXT 4:2527

(25) Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. (26) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. (27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband.

PARAPHRASE 4:2527

25 Hagar, the bond-maid, is a fit type of the covenant from Sinai, (for Hagar is one of the names of Mount Sinai in Arabia, from whence that covenant was given); and she, with her son, representeth the present Jerusalem or Jewish church, which was formed on that covenant, and is in bondage to the law, with the Jews her children.
26 But the catholic church, consisting of believers of all nations, which is formed on the covenant published from Mount Zion, and which I call the Jerusalem above, because its most perfect state will be in heaven, is represented by the free-woman Sarah, who is the mother of us all who believe.
27 My interpretation of the things respecting Abrahams wives and sons is not new; it is alluded to by Isaiah: For (Chp. Liv. 1) it is written, Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into singing and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.

COMMENT 4:25

Now this Hagar is Mt. Sinai

(some manuscripts read For Sinai is a Mountain in Arabia.)

This is a passage with many varied readings in the manuscripts and this is discussed at some length by MacKnight in his epistle on p. 300.

A question is, Is he talking about a woman or a mountain?

The problem centers in the fact that there is such a mountain.

Mathew Henry says, Sinai was called Agar or Hagar by the Arabians.

MacKnight quotes Gratius as saying that there was a city in the mountain range named Hagar. (p. 83)

Its inhabitants were called Hagarenes.

The word Hagar signifies rock, and Sinai is sometimes called Rock. See Exo. 33:22

A study of context clarifies that point.

A question could be, Is he talking about the Hagarenes or is he discussing Abrahams handmaid?

He surely is talking about Hagar.

Hagar the bondmaid is a fit type of the covenant from Sinai, for Hagar is one of the names of Mt. Sinai, in Arabia, from whence that covenant was given, and she, with her son, represented the present Jerusalem or Jewish church which was formed on that covenant, and is in bondage to the law, with the Jews as her children.

COMMENT 4:26

But Jerusalem that is above

This Jerusalem is the church.

These are the children of promise.

Sarah is the mother of all believers, on account of her bringing forth Isaac supernaturally by virtue of the promise.

is free

The law can be generally spoken of as bondage.

Peter said, Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Act. 15:10

Jesus accused those under the law of making more serious demands. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on mens shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

Mat. 23:4

Freedom is a characteristic of those in Christ.

our mother

Hagar is one motherSarah is the other, and she brings forth children unto freedom.

Sarah answers to the Jerusalem above.

This Jerusalem above is a free woman, who is the mother of us all.

COMMENT 4:27

For it is written

This proceeds to quote Isa. 54:1.

Paul is saying My interpretation of the things respecting Abrahams wives and sons is not in error for it is alluded to by Isaiah.

Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not

Sarah was the barren one, but she had occasion to rejoice.

Isaiah may have alluded to Gen. 17:15-16 where God said concerning her, She shall be a mother of nations and by changing her name from Sarai into Sarah, confirmed the promise as he did to Abraham.

Abramexalted father was changed to AbrahamFather of a multitude.

SaraiMy princess was changed to Sarah Princess.

The gospel covenant with Abraham was a long time barren like Sarah.

Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not

The cry here must refer to a cry of joy, rather than sorrow.

Sarah had no travail in childbirth, but the promise was given and finally was carried out.

The promise to Abraham was not born for centuriesbut Isaiah is stating the coming birth of Gentiles.

For more are the children of the desolate

Hagar no doubt calls Sarah the deserted wife, because when Abraham found her barren he deserted her, with her consent, to bring forth a child with Hagar.

A large family is prophesied by Isaiah 800 years before Christ.

than of her that hath the husband

Hagar seemed to have the husband, since Sarah was barren.

Isaiah prophesied that the Christians would outnumber those born under the law as typified by Hagar.

STUDY QUESTIONS 4:2527

540.

What does he say Sinai is?

541.

How is Sinai located in Arabia, yet likened unto Jerusalem in Syria?

542.

Is he talking about a woman, a mountain, or both?

543.

Could Agar and Hagar be the same?

544.

What is the point that we must not miss in this discussion?

545.

Has he used two Jerusalems to make his point?

546.

Is Jerusalem our mother, or Sarah?

547.

What woman was free?

548.

Do we speak of cities as feminine?

549.

What mother should the Galatians claim?

550.

Does Paul have any scripture for his allegory?

551.

What did Isaiah say?

552.

Was Sarahs name changed?

553.

Is the cry one of desolation or joy?

554.

Was Sarah the wife described as desolate?

555.

Which wife would have the most children or descendants?

556.

Is this the reason for the cry of the one not in travail?

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia.This clause will be, perhaps, best dealt with in an excursus, of which we will at present merely summarise the result by saying that the true (or, rather, most probable) reading appears to be: Now this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; and the sense: By the word Hagar is meant Mount Sinai in Arabia. There appears to be sufficient evidence to show that Hagar may be regarded as the Arabic name for Sinai, so that there would be a special reason for identifying Hagar allegorically with the old covenant. For a fuller discussion see Excursus B (p. 467).

Answereth to Jerusalem which now is.The word for answereth is a technical term in philosophy, applied to the parallel columns containing such antithetical pairs as goodevil; onemany; finiteinfinite, &c. Here it will be illustrated by the parallel arrangement of the different points of the allegory given above. Answereth to will thus mean stands in the same column with. Hagar, Sinai, the old covenant, the Jewish nation, or the earthly Jerusalem, all stand upon the same side of the antithesis. They are arranged one above another, or, in other words, they rank in the same line, which is the primitive meaning of the word.

Jerusalem which now is.The present Jerusalemi.e., the Jewish people still subject to the Law. It is opposed to Jerusalem which is above, as the pre-Messianic to the Messianic system.

And is in bondage with her children.The true reading is, for she is in bondage with her children. Jerusalem is, as it were, personified, so that with her Children means all who are dependent upon herthe Jewish system and all who belong to it.

EXCURSUS B: ON THE PASSAGE (Gal. 4:25),
FOR THIS AGAR IS MOUNT SINAI IN ARABIA.

The words For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia present difficulties which seem to need a somewhat longer and more technical discussion than could properly be given to them in the body of the Commentary, and it has seemed the more desirable to devote to them a short excursus, as the view taken is one that, in this instance, diverges from that adopted by more than one of the best authorities, and conspicuously by Dr. Lightfoot.

The first question is one of reading. The words appear in no less than four different forms. Two of these, however, may be set aside at once. For the two that remain the authorities are nearly equally balanced. The simple reading For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia has in its favour the Sinaitic MS.; the Codex Ephraem; the Codex Augiensis, in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge; and another Dresden MS., which usually agrees with it, and seems to have been derived from the same copy; a goodperhaps the bestcursive; quotations in Origen and Epiphanius; and the Latin authorities generally. The other reading, Now this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, is supported by the Vatican, Alexandrine, and Claromontane MSS., and by a fourth MS., now at Paris, which bears to the Claromontane a somewhat similar relation to that which the Dresden Codex bears to the Augiensis; a good cursive (somewhat inferior to that on the other side); and the Memphitic version. Balancing these authorities, the preponderance would seemif we may venture to say so, where Dr. Lightfoot thinks differentlyto be with the longer reading last mentioned. It is true that the list on the other side is more copious, and represents a wider diffusion of text; but, taking the two groups together, we believe that the second represents the older and purer form of text, and that its readings will be verified in the greater number of instances. It is indeed just that very group, headed by the Codex Sinaiticus, which comes in to mark the first stage of corruptionone of the very first and earliest forms of corruption, it is true, and one that is most nearly allied to the true text, but still a corruption and deviation from the original.
But if the external evidence bears in this direction, internal evidence would seem to confirm it. No doubt internal evidence is a treacherous and double-edged weapon, and it is very often as easy to turn it to one side as to the other. It has been quoted here in support of the shorter reading, and something, perhaps, is to be said for that view. Still, the simpler and more obvious considerations (which should be chiefly looked to) seem to tell rather decidedly the other way. The longer reading is much the more difficult; but it is one of the chief canons of internal evidence that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. It is also easy to see in the form of the Greek phrase what would induce an ignorant scribe to change, and by changing to simplify it. Or even failing this, there is never anything very forced in the hypothesis of an omission which is always one of the most natural of accidents.
The reading of the Received text (with the slight change of now instead of for) would seem, then, upon the whole, to be the more probable; and the next question would be, Assuming this reading, what sense is to be placed upon it? There is an Arabic word corresponding very nearly (though not quite) in sound to Hagar, with the meaning stone. Hence Chrysostom, in his exposition of this Epistle, assumes that St. Paul is playing upon this similarity of sound. He says that Sinai is so called (or translated) in the native tongue of the Arabs, and he speaks of the mountain as bearing the same name with the bondmaid. This statement of Chrysostom does not appear to have received much independent corroboration, though one traveller (Harant), in the sixteenth century, makes the same assertion. Still, even if Sinai were not called in a special sense the stone or rock, the identity of the Arabic word for rock might possibly have suggested to St. Paul a play on words so very much in his style. The very word Hagar, we may imagine him arguing, itself the name for rock, suggests the propriety of the analogy which I am applying. It points to the parallel between the stem and relentless legislation of Sinai and the history of Hagar the bondwoman and her son, who persecuted the child of promise. The literary methods of the present day are different, and such an explanation will seem far-fetched. It may be thought a conclusive argument against it that, whether St. Paul himself knew the Arabic signification of Hagar or not, he could not expect a Celtic people like the Galatians to know it. But even this argument is less conclusive when applied to one who is so fond of following the course of his own thought as St. Paul. And yet it must be admitted that there are too many elements of uncertainly for the explanation to be pressed at all strongly: it must remain a possibilitynot more. On the other hand, even if it should break down, it would not necessarily follow that the reading would have to be abandonedit would only lose something of its point. We should then have simply an assertion where otherwise there would be also an argument. This Hagarthe Hagar of which I am speakingstands for Mount Sinai which is in Arabia, the country of Hagar. The scene of the Mosaic legislation was part of the domains of the Ishmaelites, the children of Hagar, so that the two may very well be compared. This interpretation has the authority of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, and it is, perhaps, the safest to fall back upon. At the same time there may be something of the additional point which Chrysostom and those who have followed him in modern times have supposed.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

25. For To give proof of this correspondence.

This Agar The this is the Greek article in the neuter gender, and can agree with Hagar only as a thing; that is, as an element or factor in this allegory.

Is Represents. The neuter verb often implies representation; as “the candlesticks are the seven Churches,” “the stars are the angels of the Churches.” And in Christ’s words, this bread is my body.

Answereth Co-ordinates with, or stands in parallel row with.

Jerusalem St. Paul here uses the old Hebrew word for Jerusalem, not the modern Greek form, indicating thereby that he speaks not so much of the present concrete Jerusalem of walls and houses as of the conceptual Jerusalem, symbolized by this material Jerusalem, namely, fallen Judaism, the obsolete theocracy.

Now is Not the Jerusalem of the holy old past, nor of the future; but the faded Jerusalem of the present, deserted by God, effete and enslaved, and bound to a speedy destruction.

In bondage Bound in the fetters of the law, after the grace and glory in the law have departed.

Her children The Judaistic apostles and their Galatian converts. Of the clause this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, we have given what we conceive to be the true interpretation.

But, 1. By another reading, adopted by Lightfoot, the first words of the verse are, For the mountain Sinai is in Arabia. The phrase in Arabia, is then made to signify that the connexion between Hagar and Sinai is, that both are Arabian. To the Sinaitic peninsula, apparently, Hagar fled, Gen 16:7-14. The Arabians are called sons of Hagar, ( Bar 3:23 😉 Hagar’s name is illustrious in Arabian legends; and Arab tribes are called Hagarenes, Psa 83:7, and Hagarites, 1Ch 5:19. Hence Hagar represents Sinai, as both being Arabian. All this is far-fetched and feeble. 2. Chrysostom is quoted as saying that Hagar means rock, and thus Sinai is named Hagar rock in the Arabic language. Hence it is said, that in Arabia, means in the language of Arabia; and so St. Paul identifies Hagar and Sinai here by oneness of name. But, first, there is no sufficient proof that Sinai was called Hagar in Arabic, and the word Hagar does not etymologically signify rock, but one who flees, being cognate with hegira, the term for the flight of Mohammed. The word for rock is not Hagar, but Chagar. See Lightfoot’s learned dissertation.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Gal 4:25 . The , just said, has now a reason assigned for it, from the identity of the name “Hagar” with that of Mount Sinai . , however, is not to be placed in a parenthesis , because neither in the construction nor in a logical point of view does any interruption occur; but with a new sentence is to be commenced. “ This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical history a fact which is confirmed by the similarity of the name of this woman with the Arabian designation of Mount Sinai. Not of a different nature, however , to indicate now the corresponding relation, according to which no characteristic dissimilarity may exist between this woman and the community belonging to the Sinaitic covenant, because otherwise that would be destitute of inner truth not of a different nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the latter is, as Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who belong to it .” This paraphrase at the same time shows what importance belongs to the position of at the head of the sentence.

. .] That the name Hagar ( denotes this; see Eph 4:9 ; Khner, II. p. 137) accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai, could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in support of his . Comp. Joh 9:6 .

He now writes , and not as in Gal 4:24 , because and are intended to stand in juxtaposition on account of the coincidence of the two names . In Arabic means lapis ; and although no further ancient evidence is preserved that the Arabs called Sinai the stone , [214] yet Chrysostom in his day says that in their native tongue the name Sinai was thus interpreted; and indeed Bsching, Erdbeschr. V. p. 535, quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller that the Arabs still give the name Hadschar to Mount Sinai, a statement not supported by the evidence of any other travellers. Perhaps it was (and is) merely a provincial name current in the vicinity of the mountain, easily explained from the granitic nature of the peaks (Robinson, I. p. 170 f.), with which also the probable signification of the Hebrew , the pointed (see Knobel on Ex . p. 190), harmonizes, [215] and which became known to the apostle, if not through some other channel previously, by means of his sojourn in Arabia (Gal 1:17 ). Comp. also Ewald, p. 495; Reiche, p. 63. It is true that the name of Hagar ( ) does not properly correspond with the word ( ), but with fugit ; but the allegorizing interpretation of names is too little bound to literal strictness not to find the very similarity of the word and the substantial resemblance of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have still stronger and bolder examples in Mat 2:23 , Joh 9:6 . Beza, Calvin, Castalio, Estius, Wolff, and others, interpret, “for Hagar is a type of Mount Sinai in Arabia; ” [216] but against this view the neuter is decisive.

] not in Arabia situm (Schott and older expositors) for how idle would be this topographical remark [217] in the case of a mountain so universally known! nor equivalent to , so that . would be an adjective and would have to be supplied (Matthias); but: in Arabia the name Hagar signifies the Mount Sinai . [218] So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther (“ for Agar means in Arabia the Mount Sinai ”), Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reithmayr, and others.

] The subject is, as Theodore of Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar , not Mount Sinai (Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom and his followers, Thomas, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and others; also Hofmann now), a view which runs entirely counter to the context, according to which the two women are the subjects of the allegorical interpretation, while . was merely a collateral remark by way of confirmation. Incorrectly also Studer and Usteri, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius (also Hofmann formerly), Windischmann, Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still , the Sinaitic constitution . In this way there would be brought out no comparison at all between the subject of and the present Jerusalem; and yet such, according to the signification of (see afterwards), there must necessarily be, so that in . . . lies the tertium comparationis . The Sinaitic is not of a similar nature with the present Jerusalem, but is itself the constitution of it; on that very account, however, according to the allegorical comparison Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem. means to stand in the same row (see Polyb. x. 21. 7, and Wetstein); that is, here, to stand in the same category ( , Aristot. Metaph . i. 5, pp. 986, 1004), to be of the same nature and species , (Theophr. c. pl . vi. 4. 2; Arist. Meteor , i. 3; Lucian, q. hist. conscr . 43). Consequently: Hagar belongs to the same category with the present Jerusalem , is of a like nature with it (comp. Polyb. xiii. 8. Galatians 1 : ), has in common with it the same characteristic relation, in so far namely that, as Hagar was a bond-woman, the present Jerusalem with its children is also in bondage. See below. Thus . expresses the correspondence . But it is incorrect to take it as: she confronts as parallel (Rckert, Winer). [219] This must have been expressed by (Xen. Symp . 2. 20, Anab . v. 4. 12; comp. , Eur. Andr . 746, and , Plut. Mor . p. 474 A). Many of those who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) interpret: “ it extends as far as Jerusalem ” (Vulgate, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, and others). This would have to be more exactly defined with Genebrardus, ad Psa 133:3 , following out the literal meaning of the word : “ perpetuo dorso sese versus Sionis montes exporrigit .” But even granting the geographical reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai is not the subject, Paul must have named, instead of ., Mount Zion . Hofmann, in reference to the position of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem in the land of promise, interprets the expression locally indeed, but as indicative of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs to the same category with the mountain although Arabian, which has it side by side on the same line in the order of the history of salvation . An artificial consequence of the geographical contrast introduced as regards ., as well as of the erroneous assumption that Mount Sinai is the subject. At the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if Paul had written .

] does not stand in contrast to the former Salem (Erasmus, Michaelis), but in Paul’s view means the present Jerusalem belonging to the pre-Messianic period , as opposed to . (ver 26), which after the will take its place. See on Gal 4:26 . Moreover, the present Jerusalem and its children (“ inhabitants; ” see Mat 23:37 , Psa 149:2 ) represent the Israelitic commonwealth and its members . Comp. Isa 40:2 .

. . .] namely, to the Mosaic law. The bondage to Rome (Pelagius) is not, according to the context, referred to either alone (Castalio, Ewald) or jointly (Bengel). The subject is ., and not (Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, and others). Looking at the usage both of classical authors and the N.T., there is nothing surprising in the change of subject (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg . p. 510 C; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787 f.]). Lachmann (also Ewald) has incorrectly placed the words in a parenthesis.

[214] We may add that occurs elsewhere as a geographical proper name in Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr. always gives the name to the wilderness called in the Hebr. . As to the town , which is, however, to be pronounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on account of its too remote site, cannot come into consideration here (in opposition to Grotius and others), see Ewald, p. 493 f., and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290.

[215] As to the mineralogical beauty of the mountain, see Fraas, Aus d. Orient geolog. Beobacht . 1867.

[216] At the same time Calvin and others remark on : “hoc est extra limites terrae sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae haereditatis.” This reference is also discovered by Wieseler, who, with Lachmann, reads only . . ., “for the Sinai mountain lies beyond the Holy Land , and indeed in Arabia , where also the alien Hagar is at home.” In his view, Paul meant to say that, through their alien nature, the Sinaitic and Hagar showed themselves to answer to each other, namely, as intervenient elements in the history of salvation. But this Paul has not said; the substance of it would have to be read between the lines. How very natural it would have been for him at least to have written, instead of or in addition to . ., (or ) , in order thus at least to give some intimation that the alien character was the point! This also applies against the view of Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the reading omitting , and agrees in substance with Wieseler’s explanation, taking Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and Arabia as contrast to the land of promise. Comp. also, in opposition to this exposition, which imports elements wholly gratuitous, Ewald, Jahrb . X. p. 239.

[217] Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought into an antithetical relation to ( the Mount Sinai is indeed situated in Arabia, but corresponds , etc.), as if it were accompanied by a (and with the adoption of Lachmann’s reading); for in this case the allegorical signification of the Hagar would not be based on any ground.

[218] Observe that the apostle does not at all wish to say that Hagar is in the Arabic language generally the name of Sinai; but, on the contrary, by , he characterizes that name as a name used in the country, provincial . Hofmann unjustly finds in the words according to our reading “ absurdity .”

[219] Comp. also Wieseler: “corresponds to it; not, however, at a like , but at a different stage,” whereby the idea of a type is expressed. This view is not to be supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where means to remain in rank and file (“servare ordines secundum et ,” Schweighuser), so that as well the as the always form one row with one another.

Note .

If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, . . ., be adopted, the interpretation would simply be: “ for the Sinai-Mount is in Arabia; ” so that . would serve to support the allegorical relation of Hagar to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ancestress of the Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support much too vague, and not befitting the dialectic acuteness of the apostle. In the case of the Recepta also, ., taken as a geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that Schott’s uncritical conjecture, treating the words . . . . . . . as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is followed by Mill, Proleg . 1306, even wished to retain nothing of the passage but . . . . Against the interpretation of . by Wieseler and Hofmann, see above.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Ver. 25. For this Agar is mount ] The Arabians call Mount Sinai, Agar. Twice Hagar fled thither, Gen 16:7 ; Gen 16:14 ; Gen 21:14 , it being in her way home to Egypt. From her the Arabians are called Hagarenes, and since (for more honour’ sake) Saracens, of Sarah, Hagar’s mistress.

Answereth to Jerusalem ] That is, to the Jewish synagogue, born to bondage, as Tiberius said of the Romans, that they were homines ad servitutem parati. men prepared for slavery.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

25 .] (No parenthesis: begins a new clause.) For the word Agar (when the neuter article precedes a noun of another gender, not the import of that noun, but the noun itself , is designated, so Demosth. p. 255. 4, , . Khner ii. 137) is (imports) Mount Sina, in Arabia (i.e. among the Arabians. This rendering, which is Chrysostom’s, (so also Thl., Luther), is I conceive necessitated by the arrangement of the sentence, as well as by . Had the Apostle intended merely to localize by the words ., he could hardly but have written ., or have placed . . before . Had he again, adopting the reading , intended to say (as Windischmann), ‘ for Mount Sina is in Arabia, where Hagar’s descendants likewise are ,’ the sentence would more naturally have stood . . , or . . . . As it is, the law of emphasis would require it to be rendered, ‘ For Sina is a mountain in Arabia ,’ information which the judaizing Galatians would hardly require. As to the fact itself, Meyer states, “ in Arabic, is a stone: and though we have no further testimony that Mount Sina was thus named by the Arabians, we have that of Chrysostom; and Bsching, Erdbeschreibung, v. p. 535, adduces that of the traveller Haraut, that they to this day call Sinai, Hadschar . Certainly we have Hagar as a geographical proper name in Arabia Petra: the Chaldee paraphrast always calls the wilderness of Shur, .” So that Jowett certainly speaks too strongly when he says, “the old explanations, that Hagar is the Arabic word for a rock or the Arabic noun for Mount Sinai, are destitute of foundation.” As to the improbability at which he hints, of St. Paul quoting Arabic words in writing to the Galatians, I cannot see how it is greater than that of his making the covert allusion contained in his own interpretation. We may well suppose St. Paul to have become familiarized, during his sojourn there, with this name for the granite peaks of Sinai), but ( marks the latent contrast that the addition of a new fact brings with it: so Ellic.) corresponds (viz. Agar, which is the subject, not Mount Sina, see below. “ is ‘ to stand in the same rank :’ hence ‘ to belong to the same category ,’ ‘ to be homogeneous with :’ see Polyb. xiii. 8. 1, . .” Mey., Chrys., all., and the Vulg. ( conjunctus est ), take it literally, and understand it, , , ‘is joined, by a continuous range of mountain-tops,’ understanding Sina as the subject) with the present Jerusalem (i.e. Jerusalem under the law, the Jerusalem of the Jews, as contrasted with the Jerusalem of the Messiah’s Kingdom), for she ( ., not ) is in slavery with her children .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Gal 4:25 . . The variety of readings in the MSS., , , , , indicates some primitive error of transcription. It is hardly possible to extract any reasonable sense from the three first: for cannot mean Hagar herself: it denotes the name Hagar, and Stanley’s attempt to connect this name with Sinai proved futile. How then can the statement be understood that the name Hagar is Sinai, or that it answers to Jerusalem? How again can the superfluous description of Sinai as a mountain in Arabia be explained? Moreover, the reading without any connecting particle is intolerable in Greek language, and or was probably added to correct the solecism. Hence I conclude that was probably an error in transcription for the original , suggested by its occurrence immediately before.

The statement in the text on the contrary, For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia , is full of meaning when it is remembered that Hagar had no connection with Sinai itself, but that she found a home for herself and her children in Arabia. . The previous clause is a parenthesis, is therefore the subject of . The Apostle finds in the actual state of Jerusalem and her children the same characteristic feature of slavery as in the covenant of Sinai.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

is. i.e. represents.

answereth to = stands in same rank with. Greek. sustoicheo. Only here. Compare Gal 5:25.

is in bondage = serves. Greek. douleuo. App-190.

with. Greek. meta. App-104,

children. Greek. teknon. App-108.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

25.] (No parenthesis: begins a new clause.) For the word Agar (when the neuter article precedes a noun of another gender, not the import of that noun, but the noun itself, is designated,-so Demosth. p. 255. 4, , . Khner ii. 137) is (imports) Mount Sina, in Arabia (i.e. among the Arabians. This rendering, which is Chrysostoms,- (so also Thl., Luther), is I conceive necessitated by the arrangement of the sentence, as well as by . Had the Apostle intended merely to localize by the words ., he could hardly but have written ., or have placed . . before . Had he again, adopting the reading , intended to say (as Windischmann), for Mount Sina is in Arabia, where Hagars descendants likewise are, the sentence would more naturally have stood . . , or . . . . As it is, the law of emphasis would require it to be rendered, For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, information which the judaizing Galatians would hardly require. As to the fact itself, Meyer states, in Arabic, is a stone: and though we have no further testimony that Mount Sina was thus named by the Arabians, we have that of Chrysostom; and Bsching, Erdbeschreibung, v. p. 535, adduces that of the traveller Haraut, that they to this day call Sinai, Hadschar. Certainly we have Hagar as a geographical proper name in Arabia Petra: the Chaldee paraphrast always calls the wilderness of Shur, . So that Jowett certainly speaks too strongly when he says, the old explanations, that Hagar is the Arabic word for a rock or the Arabic noun for Mount Sinai, are destitute of foundation. As to the improbability at which he hints, of St. Paul quoting Arabic words in writing to the Galatians, I cannot see how it is greater than that of his making the covert allusion contained in his own interpretation. We may well suppose St. Paul to have become familiarized, during his sojourn there, with this name for the granite peaks of Sinai), but ( marks the latent contrast that the addition of a new fact brings with it: so Ellic.) corresponds (viz. Agar, which is the subject, not Mount Sina, see below. is to stand in the same rank: hence to belong to the same category, to be homogeneous with: see Polyb. xiii. 8. 1, . . Mey., Chrys., all., and the Vulg. (conjunctus est), take it literally, and understand it, , , is joined, by a continuous range of mountain-tops, understanding Sina as the subject) with the present Jerusalem (i.e. Jerusalem under the law, the Jerusalem of the Jews, as contrasted with the Jerusalem of the Messiahs Kingdom), for she ( ., not ) is in slavery with her children.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Gal 4:25. , …, for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, and [but] answereth to Jerusalem that now is, for it is in bondage with her children) Hagar, Gal 4:24, and Isaac, Gal 4:28, are opposed to each other, where we must observe, that Hagar is mentioned by her own name, not so Sarah; and yet Isaac is named, whilst Ishmael is not; inasmuch as the child follows [and is included under] the mother, a bond-maid; but the son of the free woman is distinguished [is taken into account] by his own name. Thus the introduction of Hagar in this section stands on a clear and well-defined footing. In the meantime, the covenant from Mount Sinai, and the promise, are opposed to each other in Gal 4:24; Gal 4:28; in like manner, at Gal 4:25-26, Jerusalem that now is, and Jerusalem above. Some consider these words, , which are found in all the copies, as a gloss; but they are wrong. For thus Pauls argument is weakened, when he brings forward the bondage engendered from Mount Sinai [as answering] to that of Jerusalem, which now is; Gal 4:24-25. Proper copies, quoted in the Apparatus, and , the neuter gender of the article, show, that the word Hagar rather was brought from Gal 4:24 to Gal 4:25; for Hagar is feminine, but Sinai is neuter.[40] Nor do those words, for she is in bondage with her children, require Hagar to be mentioned: For [with] her is to be referred, as not to Sinai in the neuter, so much the less to Hagar, but to Jerusalem which now is. The former (Hagar) had a son, but the latter (Jerusalem) had sons. These remarks relate to the whole passage; we shall now observe some things on each portion in detail.- , Sinai, a mountain) Gal 4:24 has from the Mount Sinai; now the order of the words is changed [Sinai going before mount here; but mount before Sinai in Gal 4:24] (comp. Eph 2:1, note). In the former passage, more regard is had to the mountain, inasmuch as it was upon it that the law was given, whatever name it might have [the name Sinai not being taken into account there]; afterwards, it is rather considered as Sinai [the name Sinai being the prominent idea], a mountain in Arabia.- ) , and yet [but], although it is in Arabia; is used of that which agrees with something else in a comparison. This agreement is evident in itself, for it is one and the same people that received the law on Mount Sinai, and that inhabit the city of Jerusalem; and the people at both periods stand on the same footing.[41] It is to be added, that Sinai and Jerusalem were nearly under the same meridian, and were united with slight interruption almost by the same chain of mountains.- , that now is) The antithesis is, that is above.-, now, refers to time, above to place; the antithesis of either must be supplied from the other in the semiduplex[42] oratio. The Jerusalem which is present [that now is], and earthly; the Jerusalem which is above, and eternal. The expression, which is above, is said with the greater propriety on this account, that it alludes to the higher and nobler part of Jerusalem, and rises above Mount Sinai: and the Jerusalem which is above, inasmuch as she is already our mother, could not be suitably spoken of as future [as that which is about to be, in antithesis to the Jerusalem that now is]; not only is she future [about to be, as regards the future], but also more ancient [as regards the past], than , [the Jerusalem] which now is, inasmuch as the latter has not existed for a long period, nor will it exist in time to come.-, is in bondage) As Hagar was in bondage to her mistress, so Jerusalem, that now is, is in bondage to the law, and also to the Romans,-her civil state thus being in accordance with her spiritual state.

[40] Hence the omission of the word in this verse, not so much approved of on the margin of the larger Ed., is reckoned among the fixed readings by the margin of the 2d Ed., in which the Germ. Vers. concurs. But the things deserve to be compared which Michaelis has in der Einleitung, T. i. p. m. 646, where he shows that Hagar in the Arabic idiom denotes a rock, and therefore the words ought to be thus translated: The word Hagar signifies in Arabic the Mount Sinai.-E. B.

[41] Eadem populi utroque tempore ratio. What holds good of the people at the one time, holds good of them at the other, as to their status and principles.-ED.

[42] See App. An abbreviated mode of expression, when two members of a sentence stand in such a relation, that each needs to supply some words from the other.-ED.

Lachm. read with CGg Vulg., omitting ; Tiscliend., , with both Syr. Versions and Rec. Text. B also has . AD() Memph. read .-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Gal 4:25

Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.-Hagar answers to the Jerusalem that now is, or the present fleshly Israel, bearing children in bondage. Ishmael was born of the impulses of the flesh, while Abraham impatiently waited and lost faith in the child of promise; just as the law was added, while the child of promise delayed his coming, and served as the tutor to bring them to Christ. [We should not overlook the distinction that Paul draws between the two Israels, a spiritual Israel which embraces all obedient believers in Christ, whether of the circumcision or of the uncircumcision, and is the true heir of the promise, and the carnal Israel, which has only the circumcision of the flesh, and not of the heart, which is of the blood, but not of the faith of Abraham, and is cast out like Hagar and Ishmael. (Rom 4:12-17; Rom 9:6-9).]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter 24

Hagar and Sarah

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Gal 4:25-31

Paul has stated that the history of Sarah and Hagar recorded in the book of Genesis is an allegory. In Gal 4:21-24 he showed us that their sons, Isaac and Ishmael, represented the two covenants revealed in Holy Scripture. Ishmael represented the covenant of works (law) and Isaac the covenant of grace. Here he continues to explain the allegory, showing us the difference between the two covenants. As Isaac and Ishmael represent the two covenants, their mothers represent two Jerusalems.

Two Jerusalems

For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children (Gal 4:25). There are but two religions in the world: works and grace. The one system declares that salvation is obtained by what man does for God. The other declares that salvation is obtained by what God does for man. Theses two systems are here represented by two Jerusalems.

Hagar signifies Mount Sinai, or is a figure of the law given on that mount. She represents the covenant revealed and given to Israel on Mount Sinai. Therefore, Paul tells us that she answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Being a bondwoman, she represented that state of bondage the Jews were in at the time. They were, at the time, in a state of civil, moral, and legal bondage. They were in civil bondage to the Romans. They were in moral bondage to sin, to Satan, to the world and the lusts of it. And they were in legal bondage to the law, the yoke of bondage (Gal 5:1). John Gill described their state very clearly.

They were in bondage under the elements or institutions of it, such as circumcision, a yoke which neither they, nor their forefathers could bear, because it bound them over to keep the whole law; the observance of various days, months, times, and years, and the multitude of sacrifices they were obliged to offer, which yet could not take away sin, nor free their consciences from the load of guilt, but were as an handwriting of ordinances against them; every sacrifice they brought declaring their sin and guilt, and that they deserved to die as the creature did that was sacrificed for them. And besides, this law of commandments, in various instances, the breach of it was punishable with death, through fear of which they were all their life long subject to bondage. They were also in bondage to the moral law, which required perfect obedience of them, but gave them no strength to perform; showed them their sin and misery, but not their remedy; demanded a complete righteousness, but did not point out where it was to be had. It spoke not one word of peace and comfort, but all the reverse. It admitted of no repentance. It accused of sin, pronounced guilty on account of it, cursed, condemned, and threatened with death for it, all which kept them in continual bondage.

Though there were exceptions, on the whole, the Jerusalem that then was sought righteousness before God by their own works, by their obedience to the law of God. This only aggravated their bondage. Their obedience was a mercenary obedience, not the obedience of a son, but of a slave. It was not the obedience of love, but of fear. Such people, whether they acknowledge it or not, are in bondage. Hagar represented Jerusalem, not the geographic or political city Jerusalem, but that which it portrayed Judaism, the religious system of legalism, self-righteous, works religion. Paul is telling us here that the covenant of works gives birth to a people who live continually in spiritual bondage. Hagar represents all legal religion, all self-righteous works religion.

Sarah, on the other hand, represents all true religion. She represents the covenant of grace. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal 4:26). Here Paul describes the covenant of grace and life in Christ our Mediator, Representative, and sin-atoning Savior. The kingdom of Christ is from heaven above, not from Sinai. The righteousness set forth and given in this covenant is found in his obedience, not in ours. Redemption is found in his sacrifice and his satisfaction, not in legal obedience and religious ceremonies. In the covenant of grace we have access to and acceptance with the holy Lord God through Christ, our great High Priest, not through an earthly priesthood or by our own merit (Heb 10:10-22). This covenant is free from the curse and bondage of the law and is the mother of every believer, Jew and Gentile. Jerusalem which is above (the church of Christ) is the mother of us all in the sense that she embraces all who trust Christ. We are born of grace. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast (Eph 2:8-9).

Gods Church

Jerusalem which is above is the church and kingdom of Christ. Christs church and kingdom lives by covenant grace. The apostle John uses the same imagery in describing Gods church in Revelation 21. He writes, I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husbandAnd he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystalAnd the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. (And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lambs book of life.

The church is called Jerusalem because the name signifies peace. The church and kingdom of God is under the government and rule of Christ the Prince of peace. Gods saints are children of peace. We have been given peace and called to peace, and by faith in Christ enjoy peace with God. The gospel of Christ is the gospel of peace. And the covenant of grace, of which Paul is speaking, is the covenant of peace. Jerusalem, the object of Gods choice, the palace of the great King, the place of divine worship, was compact together, and well fortified. As such, it stands in Scripture as a picture of the church and kingdom of our God.

As Hagar and Sarah gave birth to two distinct sons (a slave and an heir), the covenant of works and the covenant of grace give birth to two distinct nations (a nation of bondmen and a nation of free born sons). It is impossible for anyone to belong to both nations at the same time. Edgar Andrews writes, We cannot simultaneously be under the law and under grace. We are either children of the earthly Jerusalem, in bondage to a fruitless religion of works; or we are children of the heavenly Jerusalem, and enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God. We are either slaves like Ishmael, or heirs like Isaac.

Bondage

Paul tells us that Hagar is in bondage with her children. What is this bondage? How are all who seek righteousness by the law brought into bondage? How are men brought into bondage by the law? They are in bondage because they set about to do that which cannot be done. They pursue righteousness by the works of the law, but never attain it. The law requires men to work for reward; but they can never do the work. The law demands both righteousness and satisfaction for sin, but man can produce neither. Everything man does, both regenerate men and unregenerate men, is tainted by sin and can never satisfy the law, which requires perfection (Lev 22:21; Gal 3:10). Being ignorant of Gods righteousness, they go about to establish their own righteousness, refusing to trust Christ, refusing to submit to the righteousness of God in Christ. They simply cannot grasp the fact that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 9:31 to Rom 10:4). Consequently, they can never rest. They can never cease from their work. They are doomed to endless bondage and slavery.

Every religion that teaches sinners to perform works of any kind to obtain righteousness is a prison. Again, to quote Edgar Andrews, This is true, even if the work required is to believe, or trust, or commit, or surrender. Such things are just as truly works as circumcision, sabbath keeping, penances and pilgrimages. Legalism tells sinners to work for grace. The gospel of Christ declares that grace comes freely. Good works follow Gods operations of grace. They do not cause them (Eph 2:8-10). It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Php 2:13). He does not wait for you to do something for him.

Do not make the mistake that most do in thinking that the bondage of legalism refers only to those who seek justifying righteousness by works. It also applies to those who seek righteousness and holiness in sanctification by their own works. In fact, that is precisely what Paul is dealing with in Galatians 3, 4 (Gal 3:1-3; Gal 3:10). Sanctification, like justification, is the free gift of Gods grace in Christ, enjoyed by faith, without works (1Co 1:30-31; Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14).

Even true believers can bring themselves into bondage by such ignorance, as is evidenced by this epistle. Throughout the six chapters of this book Paul treats the Galatians as believers, as we have seen (Gal 3:1-3; Gal 3:26-29; Gal 4:6-9; Gal 5:7-10; Gal 5:13; Gal 6:1). He regarded them as believers who were being confused and led astray by false doctrine, the false doctrine of works righteousness. We seek to honor God our Savior in all things, ever striving against sin, not to attain righteousness before God, but because our great and gracious God has made us righteous in Christ (1Co 6:9-11; 1Co 6:19-20; 1Co 10:31).

Freedom

But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all (Gal 4:26). The heavenly Jerusalem, the church of Christ, is founded on the covenant of promise, which has its fulfillment in the new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband (Gal 4:27).

Paul here quotes from Isa 54:1, promising the continual enlargement of Gods church and kingdom in this world until all Israel (all Gods elect) is saved in fulfillment of his covenant purpose (Rom 11:26-27). Sarahs inability to give birth to Isaac was no hindrance to God fulfilling his promise. Rather, her inability was the very thing that demonstrated that God alone could fulfil the promise. So it is with us. If the Lord God left salvation, in any measure, to us, none could ever be saved. But that which is impossible with man is possible with God. Where sin abounds, grace much more abounds (Rom 5:20). By Gods free and sovereign grace Jerusalem which is above shall be a city fully inhabited (Rev 21:10-17).

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (Gal 4:28). Believers are the children of promise, as Isaac was. As Isaac was promised to Abraham, we were promised and given to the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3-4; Joh 6:37-39). As Isaac was conceived and born by the power of God, we are born spiritually by Gods omnipotent grace (Joh 1:12-13; Eph 1:19-20; Col 2:12). As Isaac was the heir of Abraham, we are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17).

The inhabitants of this city of grace, Jerusalem which is above, are the children of promise, being born of God in fulfillment of the covenant of promise in Christ. We are free from the law, no longer subject to its requirements or its penalties. That does not mean that Gods saints are a lawless people. We are under a new law, the rule and law of Christ (1Co 9:21; Gal 6:2). It is written in our hearts (Jer 31:31-33). In all things we are motivated by the love of Christ (2Co 5:14). The Son of God has made us free; and we are free indeed (Joh 8:36).

Ishmael the Persecutor

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now (Gal 4:29). Ishmael, the son of the flesh, mocked and persecuted the son of promise. Nothing has changed. False prophets, teaching righteousness by works, trying to bring Gods saints back under the yoke of legal bondage, mock and deride, slander and persecute all who trust Christ alone for righteousness. Salvation by works and salvation by grace are mutually exclusive. Legalists are threatened by grace, just as Ishmael was threatened by Isaac. He was not threatened by anything Isaac did, but by the mere fact that Isaac lived as Abrahams free born son. And legalists are not threatened by anything Gods people do. Believers do not mock and persecute others. Legalists are threatened by the mere fact that we live in this world as Gods free born children, walking in the liberty of grace.

Ishmael Cast Out

Grace and works, as stated above, are mutually exclusive. Therefore Paul writes, Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman (Gal 4:30). This was Gods command to Abraham (Gen 21:10-12). Ishmael, the child of flesh, the fruit of Abrahams works, had to be cast out along with the mother who produced him, and cast out by Abraham. God would not allow Ishmael to be an heir with Isaac, the true son. He will not allow any mixture of works and grace (Rom 11:6). We must cast aside the filthy rags of our own righteousness, if we would wear the righteousness of Christ. All systems of works and human merit must be forsaken from our hearts. Works religion must be cast out of our churches. We must have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph 5:11). The heirs of God are the children of grace in Christ Jesus. The self-righteous, those who seek righteousness by works, those who are part Christ and part flesh, part grace and part works advocates, cannot be heirs with children of promise.

So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free (Gal 4:31). There can be no marriage of law and grace. Believers are not hybrids or mongrels. We are the children of free grace and heirs of all that God promised his sons and daughters in the covenant of grace before the world began, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

Agar

Hagar.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

is: Gal 4:24

Sinai: Deu 33:2, Jdg 5:5, Psa 68:8, Psa 68:17, Heb 12:18

Arabia: Gal 1:17, Act 1:11

answereth to: or, is in the same rank with

her: Mat 23:37, Luk 13:34, Luk 19:44

Reciprocal: Gen 16:3 – his Gen 40:12 – The three Lev 25:1 – General Lev 25:10 – proclaim Lev 27:34 – in mount 1Ki 10:15 – all the kings 1Ki 11:36 – the city Isa 21:13 – Arabia Eze 27:21 – Arabia Mat 26:26 – this Mar 14:22 – this Luk 22:19 – is my Act 2:11 – Arabians Act 7:30 – there 1Co 10:4 – that Rock 2Co 11:20 – if a man bring Gal 2:4 – bring Gal 4:3 – in Rev 21:2 – coming

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Gal 4:25. -For Hagar (not the person, but the name) is Mount Sinai in Arabia-the neuter with the feminine in its abstract form specifying the thing itself in thought or speech. Khner, vol. ii. 492; Winer, 18; Eph 4:9. In the Clementine Homilies, 16.18, occurs , Dem. Pro Corona, p. 162, vol. i. Op. ed. Schaefer.

But the reading has been disputed. has the authority of A, B, D, E, and of one version, the Memphitic; but has in its favour C, F, K, L, , the Vulgate, Syriac, and many of the fathers. The first reading given is found in K, L, the great majority of cursives, both Syriac versions, and in the Greek fathers. On the other hand, the reading , omitting , is found in C, F, G, , the old Latin, the Vulgate, the Greek fathers Origen (according to the Latin version), Epiphanius, Cyril, Damascenus, in Ambrosiaster or the Ambrosian Hilary, in Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, and, as Prof. Lightfoot says, probably all the Latin fathers,-apud omnes Latinos interpretes, says Estius. Beza omitted in his first and second editions, but afterwards inserted it-nolui tamen receptam Graecam lectionem immutare. Now, to account for these variations, it may be said on the one side, that the juxtaposition of may have led to them, so that the one or other of the like words was omitted, and inserted, either for the connection, or as suggested by the in the previous verse. So Tischendorf, Meyer, Reiche, Winer, Ewald, Ellicott, and Alford. It may be replied, however, on the other side, that the words might be easily turned into , being found in the immediate context, while or was inserted for the contextual sequence. With this hypothesis the other variations may also be more easily accounted for. Our reading is adopted by Lachmann, Fritzsche, De Wette, Hofmann, Wieseler, Prof. Lightfoot, and by Bisping and Windischmann who may be supposed to be partial to Latin authority. Bentley adopted the same view, as may be seen in his text, as given in Ellis’s Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 108, London 1862; and in his letter to Mill (p. 45) he supposes that the verse was originally a gloss: ea verba de libri margine in orationem ipsam irrepsisse. Mill was not averse to the same conjecture, as his note indicates, and Kuster adopted the same view. This reading is moreover natural and plausible: for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, not according to the order of the words, for Mount Sinai is in Arabia. The moment is on the last words, in Arabia; that is, among the descendants of Hagar, or beyond the limits of Canaan in a land of bondmen. The site and origin of the one covenant, which is Hagar bearing children into bondage, is Sinai, and that Sinai is a mountain in the country of Hagar’s offspring. The Arabs are named from Hagar in Psa 83:7, in parallelism with Ishmaelites; , 1Ch 5:10; 1Ch 5:19; Bar 3:23. The Targumist renders Shur (wilderness of Shur) by Hagar–Hagra, as in Gen 16:7. Compare Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1.452, 3 d ed., and his Nachtrag ber den Namen Hagar-Sinai, in his Die Sendschr. d. Apost. Paulus, p. 493. Strabo, on the authority of Eratosthenes, joins with the the Nabataeans and Chauloteans, 16:4, 2; Pliny, Hist. Nat. 6.32. The clause then is a parenthetical remark suddenly thrown in, to sustain and illustrate the allegory of Hagar the bond-woman representing the covenant made at Sinai,-for indeed that Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, the country of Hagar’s descendants.

If the common reading be adopted, there are several difficulties in the way of interpretation: For this Hagar (the object of allegory, not the person) is Mount Sinai in Arabia. The meaning of the clause is not, the woman Hagar is a type of Mount Sinai (Calvin, Estius); the neuter article forbids it. Others suppose the meaning to be: Hagar is the name of Mount Sinai in Arabia; or, that mountain is so named by the Arabians-apud Arabes (Meyer); is so named in the Arabian tongue: Matthias, offering to supply . But is taken most simply and naturally as a topographical notation. The apostle is thus supposed to refer to the meaning of the word Hagar, and to say that in the tongue of the natives it is the name of Mount Sinai, or, as Tyndale renders, for Mount Sinai is called Hagar in Arabia. There is, however, no distinct proof of this assertion. It may be true, but there is no proper evidence of its truth. The tribes sprung of Hagar might give the great mountain their own name and that of their famous ancestress; but no instance of this has been adduced by any one. A Bohemian traveller named Harant visited the country in 1598, and he says that the Arabian and Mauritanian heathens call Mount Sinai Agar or Tur. His work, named Der Christliche Ulysses, published at Nrnberg in 1678, was translated out of Bohemian into German (see Prof. Lightfoot), and the quotation from it is generally taken from Bsching’s Erdebeschreibung. Granting that he reports what he heard with his own ears, it is strange that his statement has been confirmed by no succeeding traveller. His authority is rendered suspicious also by some of Prof. Lightfoot’s remarks.

It has been alleged, too, that the words Hagar and Sinai are the same in sense, and that the apostle meant to assert by the way this identity of meaning. But granting that Sinai, , means rock or rock-fissures, the Hebrew name , hajar, in Arabic-cannot bear such a signification, for it denotes fugitive or wanderer, or, as Jerome gives it, advena vel conversa. It is true that there is an Arabic word of similar sound, , which means stone, but it would be represented in Hebrew by , hhagar-the words differing distinctly in the initial consonants. Freytag, sub voce. These consonants are indeed sometimes interchanged, but and belong to different families of words. It will not do to allege with Meyer that allegory interpretation is easily contented with the mere resemblance of names, as in the case of Nazarene, Mat 2:23; Siloam, Joh 9:7; or to allege that yet, with all these objections to the common reading, it may be held that Paul, when he went into Arabia, as he says in Gal 1:17, may have heard Sinai get the provincial name of Hagar. There was apparently a place of this name not far from Petra, but Petra itself never seems to get the designation of El-hhigr. Hilgenfeld refers for a similar clause to a reference to Ramah in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 78.

-and indeed she ranketh with the present Jerusalem. Tyndale and Cranmer render bordereth upon; the Vulgate, conjunctus est; and the Arabic translator gives it as contiguous to,-rendering Arabia by El-Belka, which was on the east of the Jordan. Jerome, Chrysostom (), and Theophylact hold this view, which is also adopted by Baumgarten-Crusius; but it is geographically wrong, unless you maintain with some that Sinai belongs to the same mountain range with Sion-a very strange conjecture (Genebrardus, ad Psal. cxxxiii.). The erroneous mons qui conjunctus est of the Vulgate is explained away by Thomas Aquinas, as referring not to spatii continuitas but to similitudo. Wycliffe, however, translates it, whiche hil is ioyned to it, that is, to Jerusalem. The nominative is either or , as in the Claromontane Latin quae, but not , as in the Vulgate mons qui (Jerome, Chrysostom, Hofmann). The verb in military phrase signifies to be of the same file with, Polybius, 10.23, Op. Tit. 111, p. 39, ed. Schweighaeuser. The corresponding noun is used of alphabetic letters pronounced by the same organ, or metaphysically of things in the same category. The meaning is not stands parallel to (Winer, Rckert), but corresponds to. The marks something additional or new in the progress of the statement. The Jerusalem that now is is not opposed by this epithet to the earlier Salem (Erasmus, Michaelis), but to the Jerusalem of that day, the Jewish metropolis under the law in contrast with the Jerusalem which is from above; though the first is characterized temporally, and the other from its ideal position. The Jerusalem that now is is the symbol of the nation, under the bondage of the law-

-for she is in bondage with her children. Mat 23:37. The reading has preponderant authority over . The nominative is not Hagar nor (Gwynne), but the Jerusalem that now is, as the clause assigns the reason for the correspondence of the with or . Jerusalem is in bondage with her children, as Hagar the bond-mother with her son Ishmael. It cannot refer to civil bondage to Rome (Bagge). Augustine, on Psalms 119 (120), expounds this allegory at some length: the word Kedar in the last clause of Gal 4:5, inhabitavi cum tabernaculis Cedar, naturally suggested Ishmael and the allegory, p. 1954, Opera, vol. iv. Gaume. The apostle has been describing this very bondage-under the law, under paedagogy, under tutors and governors, in bondage unto the elements of the world.

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians

Verse 25. The literal fact is that Sinai (represented by Agar) is in Arabia, and was the place where the law of Moses came forth, with all of its burdens of ordinances, which are termed the yoke of bondage in the next chapter. The location of Jerusalem in Palestine is another literal fact, but. Paul makes a figurative use of the fact because of the conditions of servitude involving the city in his day. That is why he says that Agar and Sinai answereth (meaning to correspond with or be in the same rank or condition) to Jerusalem which now is. It is true that Jerusalem was the place, geographically, from which the Gospel was given to the world. But at the time of Paul the city was still clinging to the law of Moses as far as the Jews were concerned, and hence was yet under the bondage imposed by the Sinaite law.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Gal 4:25. A difficult passage. The reading of the first clause is disputed. The longer text (which is supported by the Vatican MS. and adopted by Westcott and Hort) reads: But (or, Now) this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia.[1] This implies that the name Hagar was an Arabic designation for Mount Sinai, but this cannot be satisfactorily proven (as the testimonies of Chrysostom and the Bohemian traveller Harant are isolated and unconfirmed). Hagar means Wanderer, Fugitive, and is connected with the Arabic Hegira (the famous flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina, whence the beginning of the Mohammedan era); Sinai means Pointed, or (according to Frst) Rocky. There is, however, an Arabic word of similar sound, though different etymology, (Hadschar, or Hadjar, Chajar), which means a stone or a rock, and is to this day applied to several remarkable stones on and around Sinai, e. g. to the traditional rock from which Moses drew water (in the Wady Leja). At the time of Paul, who was himself in Arabia (see note on Gal 1:17), it may have been (and in case this reading is correct, it must have been) a local name of one of the peaks of that group of barren rocks, or of the whole group; as Selah or Petra (Rock) was the name of the famous rock-hewn city, in the Sinaitic Peninsula, and that part of Arabia was called the Rocky Arabia (Arabia Petrea). At present the principal peaks of Sinai are called Jebel Musa (Mount of Moses, the traditional mount of legislation), Ras Sufsfeh (the probable mount of legislation, facing the vast plain Er Raha), and Jebel Katharina. Calvin and others escape this difficulty by explaining: Hagar is a type of (or, represents) Mount Sinai in Arabia. But against this is the Greek neuter article before Hagar (the thing or the name Hagar; not in the feminine, the woman Hagar). The shorter reading (of the Sinaitic MS. and the Vulgate, adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, in the last edition, and Lightfoot) is: For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia.[2] This is quite intelligible and free from the difficulty just mentioned, though for this very reason subject to the suspicion of being a correction, if it were not for the ease with which the insertion of Hagar can be explained in the Greek. Some take the clause in either case as a parenthesis, others as a continuation of the argument. It cannot be merely a geographical notice for the Galatians; for Sinai was well known to all who had heard of the Mosaic legislation. The stress seems to lie on Arabia, known as a land of the wild descendants of Hagar. She fled with Ishmael to the Sinaitic Peninsula (Gen 16:7; Gen 16:14); several Arab tribes were named after her Hagarenes or Hagarites (Psa 83:7; 1Ch 5:19), and the Arabs generally were called sons of Hagar (Bar 3:23). The law was given not on Mount Sion in the land of promise, but outside of it in Arabia, and this corresponds to Hagar who was an outsider, an Egyptian slave. The law came in beside (Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20), and had only an intermediate and transitory importance in the history of salvation.

[1] A, B, D, E read . K, L, P, with the majority of cursive MSS-, read . instead of (but, now).

[2] . So , C, F, G, Vulg., Orig The words might easily be chanced by a careless scribe into to , as this name immediately precedes the disputed reading.

Correspondeth to the Jerusalem which now is. Lit: belongs to the same row or column, is in the same rank with. Both have the same nature, namely, both are in bondage. But what is the subject of the verb? If the preceding clause be taken as a parenthesis, the subject is the Sinaitic covenant, Gal 4:24; but if it is not parenthetical, Hagar is the subject in the longer reading, or Mount Sinai in the shorter reading. The Jerusalem which now is, or the present, the earthly Jerusalem, which represents, as the metropolis, the whole Jewish race, the Mosaic theocracy.

For she is in bondage with her children. In bondage to the Mosaic law (also to Rome, although this is not meant here). The Jewish church which crucified the Lord and persecutes the Christian church, is in spiritual slavery, as Hagar was in literal slavery. We must here remember the Pauline distinction between two Israels, a spiritual Israel which embraces all believers, whether of the circumcision or of the uncircumcision, and is the true heir of promise, and the carnal Israel, which has only the circumcision of the flesh, and not of the heart, which is of the blood, but not of the faith of Abraham, and is cast out like Hagar and Ishmael. Comp. Rom 2:26-29; Rom 4:12 ff; Rom 9:6 ff.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Gal 4:25-27. For this Agar is mount Sinai That is, is a type of that mount. The whole of that mountainous ridge in Arabia Petrea, of which Sinai was a part, was called Horeb, probably on account of its excessive dryness. It was called by Moses, the mountain of God, (Exo 3:1,) because on it God gave the law to the Israelites. Grotius says, Sinai is called Hagar, or Agar, synecdochically, because in that mountain there was a city which bare Hagars name. It is by Pliny called Agra, and by Dio, Agara, and its inhabitants were named Hagarenes, Psa 83:6. Whitby thinks the allusion is taken from the meaning of the word Hagar, which, in the Hebrew, signifies a rock. And answereth Namely, in the allegory; or resembles, Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage As being in subjection to so many ritual observances, and under a sentence of wrath on the commission of the least wilful offence, and as being also in bondage to the Romans. But Jerusalem, which is above The church of Christ, so called, because its most perfect state will be in heaven; is free

, is the free woman, that is, is represented by Sarah; who is the mother of us all Who believe. The Jerusalem above, the spiritual Jerusalem, or church of Christ, consisting of believers of all nations, with the covenant on which it is formed, is fitly typified by Isaac, and his mother Sarah, the free-woman, because she was constituted by God the mother of all believers, on account of her bringing forth Isaac supernaturally, by virtue of the promise. For it is written, &c. As if he had said, My interpretation of the things respecting Abrahams wives and sons is not new; it is alluded to by Isa 54:1; Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not Ye heathen nations, who, like a barren woman, were destitute for many ages of a seed to serve the Lord; break forth, &c., thou that, in former ages, travailest not, for such is now thy happy state, that the desolate, &c. Ye, that were so long utterly desolate, shall at length bear more children than the Jewish Church, which was of old espoused to God.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 25

Is Mount Sinai; that is, represents Mount Sinai in this illustration.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and {c} answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and {d} is in bondage with her children.

(d) That is, Sinai.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Hagar represents the Mosaic Covenant made at Mount Sinai in Paul’s analogy (illustration). Her descendants represent the Israelites who lived in bondage under the Law. Sarah, not mentioned in Gal 4:25, represents the Abrahamic Covenant, and her descendants are free, living under the promise.

The earliest identification of Mt. Sinai with Jebel Musa in the Sinai Peninsula, the most popular probable site, comes from the writing of Egeria in the fourth century A.D. Perhaps in Paul’s day the Sinai Peninsula was part of Arabia. [Note: Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians to the Ephesians and to the Philippians, p. 239.] Another possibility is that the real Mt. Sinai was in ancient (and modern) Arabia, perhaps just east of the Gulf of Aqabah.

"Paul is apparently viewing Arabia as the land of Hagar’s descendants and the land of slaves; it was not the holy land that God gave Israel." [Note: Morris, p. 146.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles